Quality Rating Summary
|
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
||||
| Cheng CH, Chen CH et al, 2002 | Dickerson et al 2002 | |||
| Overall Quality Rating |
|
|
||
| Relevance Questions | ||||
| 1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | Yes | |
| 3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | Yes | |
| 4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | Yes | |
| Validity Questions | ||||
| 1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | Yes | |
| 2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Yes | Yes | |
| 3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | Yes | |
| 4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | Yes | |
| 5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | N/A | N/A | |
| 6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | Yes | |
| 7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | Yes | |
| 8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | Yes | |
| 9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | Yes | |
| 10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | Yes | |
